The NSW Government is trying to give cops greatly expanded powers, and it has the potential to affect you more than you might think.
There’s been growing unease in the legal community about a new bill named ‘The Crimes (Serious Crime Prevention Orders) Bill 2016′, which was announced in March.
The New South Wales Bar Association released a submission against the bill, describing it as “an extraordinary and unprecedented piece of legislation” which would have “grave implications for the rule of law and individual freedoms in New South Wales”.
They’ve got some serious concerns that it overrides the authority of the courts and lets police enact some reasonably severe punishments which by any standard of a just society ought to be left up to a court after someone has been convicted of a crime.
Let’s dig in.
What’s in the bill?
The bill proposes to give police extended powers to seek and impose ‘control orders’ on those they think are involved in or proximate to a crime – even if they haven’t been found guilty of an offence. It’s pretty wild: they already have this kind of power with suspects of terrorist offences, and even that’s a little bit contentious.
So what the hell is a control order? Basically, it gives police the power to restrict someone’s communication, their movement, who they work for and the access they have to the Internet. That’s a big deal.
The orders have to be approved by a judge, but they don’t need to prove an actual charge to implement them.
Wait – who can this apply to?
That’s pretty broad. As the Bar Association points out, it’s not just people who have been convicted of a serious crime; it’s also people who might commit a serious crime, or help someone else to do so. A person might actually ‘facilitate’ a serious crime without even knowing that they are doing so. For example, you might lend your car to a friend, not knowing that the car is going to be used as a getaway vehicle in an armed robbery.
The police could apply a control order to you, and – because it isn’t technically a criminal proceeding – they don’t need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you knew what was going on. It instead only requires the standard of proof of a civil proceeding, meaning it only needs satisfaction on the balance of probabilities.
Oh, and there’s no time restriction. Whether you’ve committed a serious crime, were involved in one, or are suspected of either, it’s irrelevant as to when that happened. This means that, according to the Bar Association, many law-abiding New South Wales residents might already be included in the pretty broad scope.
What happens if you breach your control order?
You could go to jail for up to five years, or cop a $33,000 fine. Rough.
Could I appeal?
Yup, but only as a matter of legal error, not fact. So proving that you didn’t do anything won’t mean much – you’d have to prove that the cops didn’t apply the proper procedure in seeking a control order. Dodgy!
What does the Bar Association reckon?
They think the law is unconstitutional and should be axed. According to them, apart from being serious infringements on legal rights and creating a parallel court system which cops can exploit, there’s literally no reason for police to have these kinds of powers. They don’t think the cops or the government have made a case at all for why this would be effective at combatting organised crime.
If you’re keen for a big chunk of tasty legalese, have a read of their whole submission. It’s pretty excoriating.
Source: New South Wales Bar Association.
Photo: Getty Images / Mark Kolbe.
